George  Washington  Flowers 
Memorial  Collection 

DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

ESTABLISHED  BY  THE 
FAMILY  OF 
COLONEL  FLOWERS 


A  CHARGE 

ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF 

Sacramental  Confession, 

DELIVERED  BY  THE 

RT.  REV,  THOMAS  ATKINSON,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

BISHOP  OF  THE  DIOCESE  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA, 

TO  THE 

CLERGY  OF  THE  DIOCESE, 

IN 

St.  John's  Church,  Wilmington,  May  QQ,  1874. 


^  RALEIGH: 

DAILY  NEWS  PRINT,  FAYETTEVILLE  STREET. 

1874. 


A  CHARGE 

ON  THK  SUBJECT  OF 

acramental  Confession, 

DELIVERED  BY  THE 

RT.  REV.  THOMAS  ATKINSON,  D.D,,  LLD., 

BISHOP  OF  THE  DIOCESE  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA, 

TO  THE 

CLERGY  OF  THE  DIOCESE. 
St.  John's  Church,  Wilmington,  N.  C,  May  22d,  1874. 


RALEIGH: 

DAILY  NEWS  PRINT,  FAYETTEVILLE  STREET. 

1874. 


THEFLOWE??SCOLlE(TnW 


BISHOP'S  CHARGE. 


Rev.  and  Dear  Brethren  of  tr    Clergy  : 

It  is  made  by  Canon  the  duty  of  every  Bishop  to  deliver 
to  his  Clergy  a  Charge  at  least  once  in  three  years,  unless 
prevented  by  reasonable  cause.  I  have  thought  it  a  suffi- 
cient performance  of  that  duty  to  urge,  in  my  Annual 
Address  to  the  Diocesan  Convention,  such  views  of  the 
questions  arising  in  the  progress  of  the  Church,  as  seemed 
to  me  true  and  seasonable.  One  such  question,  however, 
is  now  pressing  on  us,  which  requires  ampler  discussion 
than  would  be  appropriate  to  an  Address.  I  shall  therefore, 
make  it  the  subject  of  a  Charge. 

This  question  is  that  of  Sacramental  Confession ;  that  is, 
confession  made  to  a  Priest,  with  the  view  of  obtaining 
Absolution,  and  which,  it  is  supposed,  in  order  to  be  effectual, 
requires  the  disclosure  of  all  our  sins  of  thought,  word  and 
deed.  This  is  a  practice,  which,  whether  right  or  wrong, 
is  fraught  with  such  grave  consequences,  and  is  at  the  same 
time  beginning  to  be  so  largely  accepted,  both  in  the  Church 
of  England  and  among  ourselves,  as  to  justify,  perba|;s  to 
require,  the  Chief  Pastors  of  the  Flock  of  Christ  to  form  a 
determinate  judgment  concerning  it,  and  eithei*  to  give  it 
their  distinct  countenance  and  encouragement,  or  to  point 
out  plainly  the  grounds,  on  account  of  which  they  feel  it 
their  duty  to  discountenance  it.  Regarding,  as  I  do,  the 
practice  as  unauthorized  and  pernicious,  I  avail  myself  of 
this  occasion  and  this  medium  of  communication  with  you, 
to  set  forth  some  of  the  reasons  which  have  led  me  to  the 
conclusion  which  I  have  just  stated. 

Let  me  premise  that  the  term  "Confession  "  comprehends, 
in  its  religious  sense,  various  spiritual  acts,  differing  in  their 


4 


bishop's  charge. 


quality  and  in  their  results.  1st.  Confession  of  sin,  made 
directly  to  God,  all  acknowledge  to  be  a  duty,  and  indeed  a 
condition  of  })ardon.  Thus  it  is  said,  I  John,  1st  Chapter, 
9th  verse,  "If  we  confess  our  sins,  He  is  faithful  and  just 
to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unright- 
eousness," and  so.  Psalm  32d,  verse  5th,  "I  acknowledged 
my  sins  unto  Thee,  and  mine  unrighteousness  have  I  not 
hid.  I  said  I  will  confess  my  transgressions  to  the  Lord, 
and  Thou  forgavest  the  iniquity  of  my  sin."  And  so  in 
many  other  passages  of  Holy  Writ.  Indeed,  it  would  help 
very  much  to  true  repentance  and  to  assured  pardon,  if  we 
made  our  confessions  to  God  more  frequent,  more  full,  and 
more  real;  if  we  not  only  would  say  that  we  have  done 
what  we  ought  not  to  have  done,  and  left  undone  what  we 
ought  to  have  done,  but  would  bring  before  Him  the  very 
instances  of  wrong  doing,  which  our  consciences  denounce 
against  us,  the  very  acts  in  wdiich  w^e  have  offended,  the 
ver}'  words  we  have  spoken  amiss,  yea,  the  very  defilements 
of  our  hearts,  and  crave  His  pardon  for  each  one,  distinctly 
and  separately.  As  w^e  are  taught  in  Lev.  5:  6,  "Where  he 
the  transgressor  shall  be  guilty  in  one  of  these  things,  he 
shall  confess  that  he  hath  sinned  in  that.''^  For  we  are 
taught  in  I  Cor.,  11th  Chapter,  31st  verse,  that,  "if  we 
would  judge  ourselves,  we  should  not  be  judged." 

And  again,  2dly.  Confession  to  a  minister  of  God  is  by  no 
means  to  be  censured,  but  on  the  contrar}-  it  is,  under  cer- 
tain circumstances,  very  profitable  to  the  soul,  and  therefore 
to  be  strongly  recommended  and  even  enjoined.  And  this 
comes  to  pass,  when  a  person  has  been  guilty  of  an  offence 
which  disquiets  his  conscience,  and  renders  him  uncertain 
as  to  his  duty,  or  disqualifies  him  from  cherishing  that 
strengthening  and  comfortable  trust  in  God's  mercy  through 
Christ,  without  w'hich  it  is  impos.  ible  to  please  Him. 

Such  seems  clearly  to  be  the  teaching  of  Elihu,  in  the 
Book  of  Job,  33d  Chapter,  23d  verse,  and  of  which  we 
have  the  approval  of  God.    Such  w^as  the  confession  of  David 


bishop's  charge. 


5 


to  Nathan,  of  the  men  of  Jerusalem  and  Judea  to  John  the 
Baptist,  confessing  their  sins,  and  receiving  from  him  in- 
struction in  order  to  the  clearing  and  quieting  their  con- 
sciences. Sucli  again  was  the  confession  of  the  Jews  and 
Greeks  at  Ephesus,  to  St.  Paul. 

Confession  of  this  sort  is  not  only  allowed,  but  strongly 
urged,  by  our  Church  in  the  first  exhortation  to  the  Holy 
Communion,  and  I  could  heartily  wish  it  were  more  prac- 
ticed among  us,  tending,  as  it  would,  to  deepen  the  sense  of 
sin,  to  break  up  the  filse  peace  in  which  too  many  of  us 
live,  to  purify  the  heart  and  the  life,  and  to  give  us  a  true 
peace,  which  shall  sweeten  life  and  extract  the  sting  of  death, 
and  go  with  us  into  eternity,  and  dwell  with  us  throughout 
eternity.  Such  are  the  benefits  of  confession  made  to  God, 
daily,  if  need  be  hourly,  and  of  confession  made  to  God's 
ministers,  specially  when  the  conscience  of  a  penitent  is 
especially  disquieted,  and  he  needs  special  counsels  and 
consnlations. 

But  Sacramental  Confession  is  something  very  different 
from  these;  a  practice,  indeed,  of  which  I  cannot  say  less 
than  that,  in  my  judgment  at  least,  it  is  not  edifying,  b.it, 
on  the  contrary,  one  which  exhibits  an  uniform  and  fatal 
tendency  to  the  demoralization  of  an}^  community  where  it 
is  generally  adopted. 

I  affirm  then,  1st.  That  it  is  not  Scriptural.  Regular, 
habitual  confession  to  God,  we  do  read  of  in  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, as  exceedingly  profitable  and  commendable.  Occa- 
sional confession  to  a  minister  of  God  we  also  read 
of  as  commended  in  Holy  Scripture,  but  where  in  that 
blessed  Scripture  do  we  read  of  habitual  confession  to  any 
man,  as  commendable,  or  even  as  known  and  practiced? 
Its  advocates  do  indeed  urge  the  passage  found  in  the 
General  Epistle  of  St.  James,  5th  Chapter,  16th  verse,  "Con- 
fess your  faults  one  to  another,  and  pray  one  for  another 
that  ye  may  be  healed."  But  surely  the  obvious  meaning  of 
this  is,  that,  when  guilty  of  faults,  w^e  are  not  to  deny  or 


6 


bishop's  charge. 


conceal  them,  but  ingenuously  to  acknowledge  them  to  any 
one,  the  Priest  to  the  people,  as  well  as  the  people  to  the 
Priest;  and  this  is  the  interpretation  placed  on  these  words 
by  the  ancients  generally,  by  St.  Augustin,  the  greatest  of 
them  all,  particularly,  by  the  leading  English  Divines,  such 
as  Jeremy  Taylor  and  Hooker,  and  even  by  the  Roman 
Theologians,  with  few  exceptions.  No  stress  ought  then,  by 
any  fair  controversialist,  to  be  laid  on  this  passage  in  proof 
of  Sacramental  Confession.  Indeed,  it  goes  very  far  to  dis- 
prove it,  for,  in  urging  the  public  confession  of  our  faults, 
it  disallows,  or  at  least  discourages,  the  private. 

Another  passage  of  Scripture  on  which  Roman  Catholic 
Divines  rely  to  justify  confession  to  a  Priest,  as  a  condition 
of  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  is  that  found  in  St.  Matt.,  8th 
Chapter,  4th  verse,  where  oiir  Lord  says  to  the  leper,  "Go, 
show  thyself  to  the  Priest." 

Now,  without  stopping  to  insist  on  the  distinction  between 
a  bodily  cure,  and  the  healing  of  the  soul,  and  the  precarious 
and  inconclusive  nature  of  an  argument,  which  applies  to 
the  latter  what  is  only  aflirmed  of  the  former,  there  is  a 
refutation  of  this  inference  which  the  Romish  Divines  have 
affected  to  draw  from  our  Lord's  words  to  the  Leper,  that 
admits  of  no  reply,  and  no  evasion,  and  nowhere,  perhaps, 
is  it  more  clearly  and  tersely  stated  than  in  the  2d  Sermon 
on  Repentance,  in  the  Book  of  Homilies.  It  is  there  said  of 
those  who  rely  on  these  words  of  our  Lord  in  support  of 
Auricular  Confession,  "Do  they  not  see  that  the  Leper  was 
cleansed  from  his  leprosy  before  he  was  sent  by  Christ  to 
the  Priest,  to  show  himself  unto  him?"  By  the  same  reason 
we  must  be  cleansed  from  our  spiritual  leprosy,  I  mean  our 
sins  must  be  forgiven  us,  before  we  come  to  Confession. 
"What  need  we  then  to  tell  forth  our  sins  into  the  car  of  the 
Priest,  sith  they  be  already  taken  away?"  Therefore,  St. 
Ambrose  says  of  these  words,  "Go  show  thyself  to  the  Priest," 
"who  is  the  true  Priest,  but  He  which  is  the  Priest  forever, 
after  the  order  of  Melchisidech?"  Whereby  this  Holy  Father 


bishop's  charge. 


doth  understand  that  "both  the  Priesthood  and  the  law  being 
changed,  we  ought  to  acknowledge  none  other  Priest  for 
deliverance  from  our  sins,  but  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ." 

Thus  speaks  the  Homily,  of  which  we  may  well  say,  what 
the  35th  Article  of  Religion  says  of  the  Homilies  generally, 
that  they  contain  a  Godly  and  wholesome  doctrine,  necessary 
for  these  times.  But  the  Scriptural  authority  on  which  the 
advocates  of  Sacramental  Confession,  as  they  call  it,  (generally 
known,  however,  as  Auricular  Confession,)  mainly  rest  their 
case,  is  that  which  they  suppose  themselves  to  find  in  the 
words  written  in  the  23d  verse  of  the  20th  Chapter  of  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John:  "Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  the}^  are 
remitted  unto  them,  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they 
are  retained." 

As  my  object  in  this  Charge  is  to  set  forth,  as  far  as  I  can, 
the  true  dc  ctrine  on  the  subject  of  Confession,  a  subject  itself 
of  large  dimensions,  I  shall  not  attempt,  at  this  time,  to  ex- 
pound these  words,  except  so  far  as  they  bear  on  that  subject. 
It  is  in  this  relation  that  they  are  regarded  by  the  advocates 
of  Sacramental  Confession.  They  interpret  them  as  author- 
izing and  even  requiring  the  observance  of  that  practice. 
They  reason  in  this  way  :  That  sin  needs  to  be  remitted, 
that  post-baptismal  sin  is  either  irremissable,  (the  error  of 
the  Novatias  of  old,)  or  it  is  to  be  remitted  by  absolution,  for 
which  the  text  gives  the  authority,  but,  to  be  remitted,  it 
needs  to  be  known,  and  to  be  known,  it  needs  to  be  confessed. 
Reasoning  on  these  principles,  the  Romish  Divines  have 
worked  out  a  thoroughly  consistent  theory,  with  which  their 
practice  corresponds.  They  say  that  by  these  words,  "whose- 
soever sins  ye  remit,  &c.,"  Christ  has  made  the  Apostles 
and  all  Priests  judges  upon  earth,  that  without  their 
sentence  no  man  that  hath  sinned  after  baptism  can  be 
reconciled  to  God.  But  the  Priests,  who  are  judges,  can 
give  no  right  or  unerring  sentence  unless  they  hear  all  the 
particulars  they  are  to  judge.  Therefore,  by  Christ's  law, 
men  are  bound  to  tell  in  confession  all  their  particular  sins 


8 


bishop's  charge. 


to  a  Priest  The  Council  of  Trent,  therefore,  anathematizes 
in  the  1st  Canon  of  the  14th  session  any  one  who  denies  that 
Penance  is  in  the  Catholic  Church,  truly  and  properly,  a 
saci-ament  instituted  by  Clirist  Himself,  for  reconciling-  the 
faithful  unto  God,  as  often  as  they  fall  into  sin  after  baptism ; 
and  by  the  4th  Canon  of  the  same  session  the  Council  goes 
on  to  anathematize  any  one  who  denies  that  Confession  is  a 
part  of  Penance,  and  by  the  6th  it  anathematizes  any  one 
who  denies  that  Saci-amental  Confession  is  necessary  to  sal- 
vation, and  by  the  7th  Canon  any  one  who  says  it  is  not 
necessary  of  divine  right,  in  the  sacrament  of  Penance,  to 
confess  all  the  mortal  sins  which  are  remembered,  after 
diligent,  previous  meditation,  including  those  which  are 
secret,  with  the  circumstances  which  change  the  character  of 
sin.  Look  at  that!  Is  it  not  a  complete  system,  coherent 
in  all  its  parts,  a  well  built  castle,  w^de  enough  to  embrace 
the  whole  family  of  man,  with  dungeons  for  the  refractory, 
and  chambers  of  rest  for  the  submissive?  But  after  all,  is 
it  the  work  of  God,  or  of  man  ?  Is  it  the  Gospel  of  Christ, 
or  another  Gospel  ?  Surely  no  one  who  w^as  not  taught  this 
scheme  of  doctrine  elsewhere,  would  ever  find  it  in  the 
Scriptures.  Where  has  Christ  said  that  He  has  left  men  to 
be  the  judges  of  the  consciences  of  their  fellow-men,  to 
assign  to  each  act  its  nature  and  its  retribution,  and  that 
these  sentences  He  would  ratify?  Did  He  not  rather  say, 
"Be  not  ye  called  Master,  for  one  is  your  Master,  even 
Christ  ?  "  Does  not  St.  Paul  say,  "Who  art  thou  that  judgest 
another  man's  servant;  to  his  own  Master  he  either  standeth 
or  falleth." 

It  is  not,  I  conceive,  pressing  such  passages  as  these  too 
far,  to  say  that  the}^  do  strongly  forbid  such  dominion  by 
man  over  the  conscience,  the  feelings,  the  character,  the 
conduct  of  his  fellow-man,  as  the  doctrine  and  practice  of 
Sacramental  Confession  necessitate.  Where  that  practice  is 
thoroughly  established,  a  confessor  may  be  devout,  may  be 
benevolent,  but  he  is  a  devout  and  benevolent  despot.  He, 


bishop's  charge. 


9 


surely,  if  any  man,  is  a  Master  upon  earth.  And  after  all, 
how  weak  and  unsubstantial  is  the  ground  on  wliich  this 
monstrous  power  is  made  to  rest!  E'or,  as  Bishop  Taylor 
and  others  have  remarked,  if  Christ  made  Priests  judges, 
their  judgment  is  not  of  the  sins,  but  of  the  persons.  It  is 
not  what  sins  ye  remit,  but  whose  sins  ye  remit.  The  inquiry 
is  not  as  to  the  sins,  but  as  to  the  repentance  of  him  who  has 
committed  them.  And  therefore,  it  becomes  the  ministers 
of  souls  to  know  the  state  of  the  penitent  and  n^  t  the  nature 
and  number  of  his  sins.  Neither  does  Christ  give  power  to 
punish,  but  to  pardon,  or  not  to  pardon.  And  what  is  this 
power  to  pardon  ?  Is  it  judicial,  is  it  absolute, or  is  it  merely 
declarative?  For  what  is  sin?  Is  it  not  an  offence  against 
God  ?  Is  it  not  a  debt  due  to  our  Father  in  Heaven  ?  Who 
can  release  the  debt  but  he  to  whom  it  is  due  ?  And  wliile 
reason  thus  speaks,  and  Scripture  thus  speaks,  what  say  the 
great  Christian  teachers? 

St.  Jerome  says :  "God  inquires  not  what  is  the  sentence 
of  the  Priest,  but  the  life  of  the  guilty."  And  St.  Ambrose 
says:  "Men  give  their  ministry  in  the  remission  of  sin,  but 
they  exercise  not  the  right  of  any  power."  "Men  pray,  but 
it  is  God  who  forgives."  And  so  again,  St,  Chrysostom, 
Homily  28.  on  I  Cor.,  says  on  these  words  of  St.  Paul,  "Let 
a  man  examine  himself,"  &c.  He  bids  not  one  examine 
another,  but  a  man  himself,  making  the  tribunal  not  a 
public  one,  and  the  conviction  without  a  witness.  And 
again  in  another  Homily,  commenting  on  the  same  words, 
he  says :  "St.  Paul  bids  thee  within  thy  own  conscience, 
none  being  present  but  God,  who  knows  all  things,  to  set  up 
a  judgment  and  search  after  thy  sins."  St.  Basil  says,  "  I  do 
not  make  confession  with  my  lips,  to  appear  to  the  world, 
but  inwardly  in  my  heart  where  no  eye  sees."  And  so  St. 
Augustin,  expounding  these  words  of  the  Psalmist  in  Ps.  32. 
"I  said  I  will  confess  my  transgressions  unto  the  Lord,  and 
Thou  forgavest  the  wickedness  of  my  sin,"  says :  "He  had 
not  yet  pronounced  it,  but  only  promised  that  he  would, 


10 


bishop's  charge. 


and  yet  God  forgave  him.  He  had  not  yet  pronounced  it, 
but  only  in  his  heart.  His  confession  was  not  yet  come  to 
his  moutli,  yet  God  heard  the  voice  of  his  heart.  His  voice 
was  not  yet  in  his  mouth,  but  the  ear  of  God  was  in  his 
heart." 

Fut  why  should  I  go  on  multiplying  citations  from  the 
early  Christian  witnesses  and  expounders  of  the  Gospel  to 
show  that  they  did  not  believe  in  Sacramental  Confession  as 
a  condition  of  the  pardon  of  sins,  or  as  a  means  of  grace. 
On  that  subject  their  doctrine  was  thoroughly  Protestant, 
yet  at  the  same  time  indisputably  Catholic,  for  who  would 
care  to  be  more  truly  and  distinctly  Catholic  than  St.  Am- 
brose, St.  Jerome,  St.  Augustin,  of  the  Latin  Church,  St 
Chrysostom  and  St.  Basil,  of  the  Greek?  And  thus  it  con- 
tinued for  1,200  years.  Grievous  sins  which  offended  the 
whole  Church,  were,  for  several  centuries,  confessed  before 
the  whole  Church ;  sins  generally  were  confessed  only  before 
God. 

In  the  Oriental  Church,  a  practice  prevailed  for  a  time, 
because  of  some  scandals  which  public  confession  had 
occasioned,  of  appointing  certain  Priests  chosen  for  the  pur- 
pose, because  silent  and  discreet  men,  and  called  Peniten- 
tiaries, to  receive  confession  of  sins  of  an  atrocious  nature 
and  to  guide  the  penitents,  but  this  practice,  after  a  time, 
was  discontinued.  In  the  mean  time  private  confessions, 
although  still  voluntary,  became  more  frequent.  As  disci- 
pline decayed  crime  increased,  and  spiritual  darkness 
deepened,  until  at  length,  in  the  13th  century,  at  the  4th 
Lateran  Council,  the  momentous  step  was  taken  of  requir- 
ing confession  to  a  Priest  to  be  made  at  least  once  a  year,  as 
a  condition  of  communion,  and  this  was  still  more  irrevo- 
cably bound  on  the  members  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  by 
decrees  and  Canons  enacted  by  the  Council  of  Trent. 

The  Church  of  England,  so  far  from  requiring  Sacramen- 
tal Confession,  does  in  effect  stigmatize  it  by  the  censure 
which  she  pronounces  in  the  2oth  Article  on  the  Sacrament 


bishop's  charge. 


11 


of  Penance,  of  which  Auricular  Confession  is  an  integral 
and  most  important  part.  And  again,  in  the  1st  exhortation 
in  the  Communion  office,  the  Church  of  England  clearly 
indicates  that  confession  to  a  Priest  is  not  only  not  a  pre- 
requisite to  Communion,  but  that  it  ought  not  to  be  made, 
save  only  in  certain  exceptional  cases,  and  then  not  of  all 
sins,  but  only  of  those  as  to  which  the  offender  cannot  quiet 
his  own  conscience.  Confession  to  a  Priest  then,  according 
to  the  Church  of  England,  instead  of  being  a  regular  part 
of  spiritual  discipline,  is  a  remedy  of  a  questionable  nature, 
to  be  used  only  in  certain  abnormal  cases,  and  then  only  for 
definite  and  specific  ends.  It  has  been  well  said,  that 
according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  a  con- 
fessor, a  physician  of  souls,  is  like  the  physician  who  min- 
isters to  the  body;  he  best  discharges  his  office  when  he 
makes  it  unnecessary  for  the  patient  to  come  to  him  again. 
Our  own  Church  is  much  more  guarded  even  than  this,  for, 
Sacramental  Confession  and  Absolution  being  correlative,  it 
omits  the  statement  as  to  the  benefit  of  Absolution,  in  the 
exhortation  to  the  Communion,  which  the  English  Prayer- 
book  contains,  and  it  has  withdrawn  from  the  Priest,  in  the 
visitation  of  the  sick,  eveii-  that  guarded  right  to  absolve, 
which  the  Church  of  England,  in  certain  cases,  allowed  her 
clergy.  These  changes  in  the  American  Prayer-book  are 
pointed  out  by  Mr.  Carter,  of  Clew^er,  in  his  book  on  Con- 
fession, and  deeply  regretted  by  him,  he  being  a  candid, 
and  at  the  same  time  an  earnest,  advocate  of  Sacramental 
Confession.  They  certainly  indicate,  very  clearly,  that 
private  absolution,  except  in  the  solitary  case  of  a  criminal, 
under  sentence  of  death,  is,  when  pronounced  by  an  Ameri- 
can clergyman,  an  unauthorized  and  lawless  act,  and  that 
Sacramental  Confession  being  designed  as  a  preparation  for, 
and  condition  of,  absolution,  and  this  being  indeed  the 
reason  of  its  existence,  is  even  more  pointedly  opposed  to 
the  teachings  of  the  American  Church  than  of  the  English. 
Is  this  teaching  erroneous  or  superfluous? 


12 


bishop's  charge. 


In  nothing,  perhaps,  is  the  wisdom  of  that  great  and 
illustrious  body,  the  Anglican  Church,  more  thoroughly 
justified  of  her  loving  children  than  this.  There  are  greater 
errors  .n  the  Church  of  Rome  than  Auricular  Confession, 
but  there  is  no  greater  practical  evil.  For  consider,  1st, 
how  it  enfeebles  the  conscience.  The  very  object  of  con- 
science, the  very  reason  of  the  existence  of  that  faculty,  is 
that  men  may  find  out  right  and  wrong  and  apply  this 
knowledge  to  themselves,  to  their  own  conduct,  their  own 
hearts.  But  this  is  the  very  office  of  the  confessor.  The 
confessor  becomes  to  the  penitent  his  conscience,  and  that 
conscience,  which  God  has  given  him  as  a  guide,  is  super- 
seded in  its  functions,  dethroned,  set  aside,  and  thereby 
enfeebled,  i)aralyzed.  It  is  not  now  the  business  of  the  man 
to  examine  himself,  it  is  the  business  of  the  Priest  to  ex- 
amine him.  It  is  no  longer  the  business  of  the  man  to 
judge  himself,  it  is  the  business  of  the  confessor  to  judge 
whether  he  has  done  amiss,  how  much  amiss,  and  how  far 
circumstances  extenuate  or  aggravate  his  fault.  Of  what 
use,  then,  is  conscience  to  the  penitent,  except  to  carry  him 
to  the  Priest  and  to  deliver  him  bound  into  the  hands  of 
the  Priest?  If  his  conscience  rke  up  against  the  direction 
of  the  Priest,  so  much  the  worse  for  his  conscience.  It  is 
ill-instructed  and  must  be  silenced.  Can  a  better  method 
be  imagined  for  chaining,  starving  and  slaying  conscience; 
in  other  words,  for  demoralizing  a  man  or  a  community, 
than  to  establish  the  confessional  and  subject  men  and 
women  to  it? 

Again,  Confession,  according  to  the  principles  of  this 
system,  is  to  be  followed  by  absolution,  wdiich  does  not 
merely  declare,  but  does  effectually  convey,  the  remission  of 
sin.  Now,  what  a  temptation  does  this  furnish  to  poor 
human  nature  to  indulge  a  sinful  inclination,  since  the  sin 
is  so  soon  and  so  certainly  to  be  wiped  out?  Is  this  an 
imaginary  danger?  I  think  that  there  is  no  reasonable 
doubt,  that  wherever  Auricular  Confession  is  an  established 


bishop's  charge. 


13 


institution,  that  these  sins  are  committed  the  more  readily 
and  the  more  frequently,  because  of  the  expectation  of  the 
benefits  of  absolution,  L  e.,  a  certain  and  speedy  pardon. 

Again,  consider  the  effects  of  Auricular  Confession  in  the 
suggestion  of  wicked  thoughts  or  acts  to  those  who  might 
have  remained  ignorint  of  them.  In  that  respect,  the 
"Homo  Apostolicus,"  an  approved  manual  for  confessors  in 
the  Church  of  Rome,  contains  matters  of  a  very  dangerous, 
and  even  pernicious  nature.  And  if  it  be  said  that  there  is 
no  such  peril  in  our  own  Church,  my  reply  is,  that  it  does 
exist,  even  with  us. 

There  is  a  book  called  "The  Priest  in  Absolution,"  de- 
signed for  those  who  receive  confessions  in  the  Church 
of  England,  and  of  which  there  are  copies  in  this  country, 
a  book  which  I  have  reason  to  believe  is  habitually  used  by 
at  least  some  clergymen  in  this  country,  and  which  appears 
to  be,  to  a  certain  extent,  an  abridged  translation  of  the 
"  Homo  Apostolicus,"  not  less  objectionable  in  substance  and 
more  faulty  in  form,  inasmuch  as  it  is  written  in  English, 
while  Lignoris'  book  is  in  Latin.  I  am  compelled  to  believe 
that  the  general  use  of  either  would  exert  an  unfavorable 
influence  on  the  morals  of  any  community. 

Now,  it  may  be  useful  to  inquire  how  do  these  reason- 
ings accord  with  facts.  Undoubtedly  the  practice  of  Au- 
ricular Confession  was  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  deep- 
ening devotion  and  purifying  morals.  Has  it  subserved 
that  purpose,  or  has  it  not  rather  been  a  great  and  calami- 
tous mistake?  What  is  the  state  of  morals  in  the  coun- 
tries in  which  Auricular  Confession  is,  in  the  main,  not 
practiced,  as  compared  with  that  which  we  find  in  those 
countries  in  which  it  is  generall}^  observed? 

In  a  book  published  by  the  Rev.  M.  Hobart  Seymour, 
called  "  Evenings  with  the  Romanists,"  I  find  some  remark- 
able statistics,  for  which  he  cites  very  w^eighty  authorities. 
Thus,  with  regard  to  murders  committed  in  England,  he 
cites  the  tables  laid  before  Parliament,  and  published  by 


14 


BISHOPS  CHARGE. 


order  of  the  House,  in  1852,  and  it  thus  appears  that  the 
pro[)ortion  of  murders  to  the  entire  population  of  England 
and  Wales,  in  1851,  was  four  to  every  million. 

In  Ireland,  by  returns  laid  before  Parliament  in  1851,  the 
average  of  the  committals  for  murder  for  each  year  during 
the  period  of  the  seven  preceding  years,  was  nineteen  for 
each  million  of  population. 

In  Belgium,  it  appears  by  returns  laid  before  the  King  by 
the  Minister  of  Justice,  and  published  in  1852,  that  the 
number  of  committals  for  murder  in  each  year,  for  a  period 
of  ten  \^ears,  produces  an  average  of  eighteen  murders  in 
each  million  of  the  population.  Belgium  is  an  exception- 
ally moral  country  as  compared  with  the  other  Continental 
countr  es  of  Europe. 

He  cites  the  statement  of  the  administration  of  criminal 
justice  in  France  in  1851,  presented  by  command  to  the 
Emperor  by  the  Minister  of  Justice,  as  showing  the  number 
of  persons  committed  before  the  civil  tribunal  for  murder 
in  that  year,  and  adding  to  that  the  estimated  number  tried 
before  military  tribunals  that  year,  he  finds  that  the  average 
was  thirty  to  each  million  of  the  population. 

Not  to  dwell  on  the  statistics  of  each  country  in  Conti- 
nental Europe,  I  will  cite  those  as  given  by  him,  that  apply 
to  Naples. 

He  refers  to  Mittermaier  for  the  crimnial  calendar  of 
Naples  for  1832,  and  gives  the  enormous  number  of  one 
hundred  and  seventy-four  murders  for  each  million  of  the 
population. 

With  regard  to  another  class  of  crimes  the  statement 
laid  before  Parliament  by  the  Registrar-General  of  Eng- 
land, in  his  return  for  1851,  shows  that  in  the  London 
division  four  per  cent,  of  the  births  were  illegitimate. 
The  official  returns  for  Paris  for  1850,  published  by  the 
Bureau  des  Longitudes,  give  the  proportion  for  illegitimate 
births  in  that  cit}^  as  thirty  three  per  cent.  And  in  Vienna, 
as  shown  by  official  tables  published  by  the  Ministerial 


bishop's  charge. 


15 


Secretary,  the  yearly  average  of  such  births  from  1<S48  to 
1851  reached  the  monstrous  proportion  of  fifty-one  per  cent. 

Compare  then  the  moral,  social  and  political  conditon  of 
England  with  that  of  the  Continental  countries  to  which  I 
have  referred,  and  it  is  as  the  healthful  atmosphere  of  a 
mountain  to  the  pestilential  exhalations  of  a  morass.  I 
certainly  do  not  attribute  this  remarkable  diflference  ex- 
clusively to  the  [)ractice  of  Sacramental  Confession,  but  inas- 
much as  this  is,  beyond  doubt,  a  very  powerful  agency,  its 
results  clearly  seem  to  be  not  favorable  to  the  purity  of 
morals,  but  tending,  manifestly,  in  the  opposite  direction. 
Introduce  Sacramental  Confession  into  any  community,  and 
the  secret  of  ever}^  woman  who  uses  that  instrument  for 
disburdening  the  conscience  is  in  the  breast  of  the  Priest, 
and  she  comes  under  his  power.  The  secret  of  every  man 
who  uses  it,  (and  they  are  comparatively  but  few,)  and  that 
man  comes  under  his  power.  The  Priest  habitually  receives 
confidences  w^hich  neither  husband,  father  or  mother  shares, 
and  w^hich  generally  ought  to  be  trusted  to  none  but  God, 
alone. 

I  conclude,  then,  that  Sacramental  Confession  is  not  au- 
thorized by  Scripture,  was  unknown  to  the  Primitive 
Church,  is  disallowed  by  the  Church  of  England,  except  in 
some  few  jealously  guarded  cases,  is  even  in  those  cases  dis- 
allowed by  the  American  Church,  except  in  the  single 
instance  of  a  criminal  about  to  be  executed,  was  never 
required,  even  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  until  the  13th 
century,  has  been  found  by  large  and  long  experience  to  be 
pernicious  to  morals  and  injurious  to  the  peace  and  happi- 
ness of  society,  and,  therefore,  ought  by  all  who  love  this 
Church  of  ours  and  this  country  of  ours  to  be  resisted  and 
rejected. 


U.  C.     ^04    Z99U    v.l  572456 
Nos, 1-lS 


R^C^  - ReliglQ us  P a'^phl e4;^ 


[ 

CALL  NUMBER 

VoL 

Date  (for  periodical) 

Copy  No. 

N.C.     204    Z99M    v.l  572455 

■'OS.  1-18 


